Topic: The adoption of Bitcoin in poor countries: a source of conflict? (Read 629 times)

Big countries don't see it coming from small ones because it wouldn't make a difference for them - however, they will see more and more how BTC - may - help in some regards and some spheres in the finances.
It will be a good point to learn how BTC may be adapted to different needs and conditions on a much bigger scale.

BTC is for reserves, in my opinion - it's considered a digital gold not without a reason.
The place of digital oil and money would take someone else.. LTC, for example!

Adopting Bitcoin as a financial asset(and as a means of payment) and accepting Bitcoin as a legal tender are two different things.
I think that most poor countries have no problem with adopting Bitcoin as a financial asset/means of payment. I also don't think that the former colonial powers care that much about Bitcoin adoption in the poor and underdeveloped countries. Most poor countries have weak national currencies and the adoption of a globally accepted cryptocurrency might have some benefits for the citizens of those poor countries.
However, I don't think that Bitcoin is a financial panacea and you are definitely wrong about the "reduced transaction costs".

Take a look at the dollar - and it isn't considered an illicit activity to use in such ways too - it's just the question - who - uses BTC at this point for now..
And the big fellas from the Central Bank and other entities like it.

I would say it's better to put as much less of a hassle onto the government as possible. As it was said, once things are not going their way, you will be out of the picture, which isn't a good way, in my opinion.

It's either all in for doing it yourself or being regulated - but you shouldn't be embarrassed if something happens because of what you described in your post.
Choose your edge of the sword 

Allowing their citizens to use bitcoin in a controlled manner is not freedom and that is quite literally what most people do not want. Bitcoin enthusiasts are aiming for freedom and decentralization and giving at least a small part of their freedom to the government is not complete freedom at all. additionally the government will not really be able to give off all control but even if they act like they are only there to supervise, once they see something that do not go their way they will surely butt in and take away what their citizens have under the pretense of law and order. So it does not work either way.

Most people on Earth are under the power of governments for obvious reasons. The World's system is designed like a prison such that the confined ones are under constant supervision unless they become responsible enough to be free to use stuff like Bitcoin without too much supervision. There will certainly be issues if those that should be supervised are able to function without supervision. The way out of this is to enable them use bitcoin in controlled manner. Or allow bitcoin to exist as a sovereign network/currency where participants or users are able to check and balance one another's activities and even agree to cooperate with governments on certain issues.

The risk of conflict and instability will always be present, same with what El Salvador has faced during the proposal for bitcoin as a legal currency. However, with proper understanding and guidance from a good leader, everything will be put into order, but it will definitely takes some time.

One thing that will surely arise as a potential conflict is the regulatory challenges. No matter how the government may try to regulate bitcoin, but seeing other users taking it for illicit activities, that would definitely create a chaos between the government and the bitcoin users. This could be manageable probably but is quite inevitable becoming it a strong issue.

The more knowledge, practice and experience they have with Internet and devices connect to Internet and interactions on Internet, they will become less vulnerable to online scams. In modern world nowadays, I see it's hard to find any nation without Internet and people will have access to Internet, more or less from developed to developing countries and third-world nations.

If they are in poor countries, have been unbanked or under-banked for years, they will see more reasons to join Bitcoin and have their own banks. There will be barriers but they can adopt Bitcoin if they want.

Yep especially with the country that aren't accept technology, they don't even know how to use internet and the devices.

It's need a good understanding in technology, someone who already know how to use devices and internet sometime still don't know anything with Bitcoin and they're prone to be scammed.

It will be not effective to adopt Bitcoin in poor countries.

It doesn't mean that once a poor country already adopted the use of the Bitcoin they will get in.the bottom of the line because still it's on the government how they will manage their country and if the Bitcoin just adopted and they have the same thing happens in their country even the price of the Bitcoin doesn't tick at all. Even though we want to help with the Bitcoin but if the country is not innovative at all it's become useless. Reason why Bitcoin is open for everyone but not applicable to all.

the main area where  countries that were previously colonized  still looks like they are still under the control of their colonial masters is in area relating to certain economic policies that require dealing with those said nation. The underdevelopment and lack of technological systems makes it impossible to depend on themselves for all her need which is basically how the structure of the global economy works. If there's a need to adopt Bitcoin, it doesn't in any way have a dealing with who is whose colonial masters.

Apart from instances where the countries intention is to use Bitcoin as her reserve outside the USDT, if it's just on the aspect of allowing citizens to invest, and operate cryptocurrency related transactions seamlessly without government regulations, there won't be a need for the government to play a pivotal role in such decisions at all.

Poor countries even need Bitcoin more than the developed ones since thier currency has lost it value, inflation has risen too high and the only edge against it will be the use of Bitcoin as a store of value. Conflict is almost like a constant as far as you're talking of a region that's engulfed with poverty so with or without Bitcoin adoption, it wouldn't change a thing.

Are you implying that where conflict is found bitcoin thrives

Venezuela had a bad patch and bitcoin seemed to be the preferred mode of Payment,  not sure on the conflict standing...

Zimbabwe had a collapsed currency to the extent of having the USD of the USA being a currency to be used as substitute currency but this could not be supported and resulted in opting for cryptos like Bitcoin which were traded at a premium...but what was upset was the conflict and I don't think headline fills in the gap.

Currently Russia-Ukraine is in crossfire but I don't think Bitcoin is stealing the headline as several modes of payment exist in affected places , but does this make these two countries poor, I don't think so...

Inasmuch as Bitcoin can stand to resolve lingering conflict issues in the said country,especially when it involves economic growth and financial stability,it's not a big deal or a necessity for any country to adopt Bitcoin.Its a decision for once but if the legalities and the country's interest doesn't correspond then;so be it.The major tool can be unfavorable all together.
Bitcoin will not solve socio-political adversities because there'll be so much conflicts while implementing Bitcoin as means of mediation.

I've been saying this in the past and I will still mention this, any country that plans to pursue a sustainable development must look deeply into the welfarism of the citizens first before anything. And I am more in tune with a socialist state than a capitalist state because it tends to open more space to the people to have some level of ownership in the economy.

 My only issue sometimes with a socialist state is it breeds more stagnation in the development of a country's economy especially if people at the helm of affairs have personal interests which is usually above the interest of the people. In such country, socialism will not work effectively as state resources will still end up in the hands of the few instead of the general public.

The narrative of being under control and domination from colonial powers is just an excuse to justify the current chaos these countries face in present time. Instead of changing their conduct, people from these countries blame foreigners for their own mistakes and failures.

Bitcoin can't help this way, because the problem isn't solely financial, but a problem of mindset. If the mindset doesn't change, these countries will remain poor.

It's necessary to have discipline, focus and the desire to evolve. If you remove your thoughts from the victimization and directs it to personal development, you will start seeing considerable improvements in your life.

Then, and only then, Bitcoin can become an useful tool in this process.

One thing that is important is that investors who are in poor countries will definitely face problems in bitcoin adaptation if the market suddenly dumps after Investing in bitcoin and they face losses on their investment. That's why poor countries are more interested in fiat currencies than bitcoin. However, it is different for corrupt countries, they value bitcoin more than fiat currency for money laundering. The list of corrupt countries in my country is definitely above and in our country Corrupt people are giving the most important to bitcoin for money laundering. Bitcoin is not legalized in my country but it is ranked 37th in the world in terms of bitcoin transactions in the country.

A that is still under the direct or indirect control of another strong nation cannot be financially independent. They will have to get approval from their colonial masters before they make any policy. This was the case in the Central African Republic when they adopted Bitcoin as a legal tender. This African country is under the control of France and they didn't even have a central bank. The adoption of Bitcoin caused a lot of conflict between CAR, France and other Francophone countries in Africa. The policy conflicted with the neo-colonial goals of France which made CAR repeal the law after a few months.

However, El Salvador was able to withstand and overcome the pressures from the international Organisation to limit its exposure to Bitcoin. Therefore regardless of the colonial ties, a strong-willed leader like Bukele can still make a difference.       

Poor countries, we're talking about countries that are poor in finances, resources and trust me, there's imbalance in the country's budget. Poor countries have only one main task, that's simply to enable stability of initial provisions of citizen needs and wants, everything becomes settled. Bitcoin and fiat currency are both important for the statis structure of the country's economy and I do not see them becoming any threats. Rather the government should focused on sorting out the complex matters at hand, handling with crypto and the real business of the day, politics. Everyone have what they stick to in the system. It's free spirit to have belief in the main compressing features of the system.

No, there's no source of conflict.

That's true, unfortunately most (probably all) of poor countries are have a corrupt government. You're hoping the government to reduce taxes, creating more jobs etc, but if the government is the one who corrupt, there's no way they will improve their country.

All they want is enrich themselves, actually they're more happy to see their citizen are struggling.

I really don’t see how this could cause any conflicts. If you’re saying banks would suffer from losing clients or seeing fewer deposits, you're mistaken—no one’s saying fiat money is going away. Let’s remember, bitcoin’s role is simply to be an alternative, so people are still going to use banks.

Maybe I’m wrong, and you're actually talking about politics and their interests. But honestly, fiat money still dominates the market, and bitcoin will continue to be just an alternative. Let’s not focus on the negatives here, or we’ll miss out on the great benefits it’s bringing."

Adoption of Bitcoin as a legal tender by a poor country can not degenerate to any conflicts as far as I know, the privacy and freedom that Bitcoin guarantees to it's holders is the same benefits that the country will enjoy. A very good case study is El Salvador, so far we've not heard of any conflicts in that country because of Bitcoin. Conflicts are caused because of the interests of the leadership in a country, whether it's favorable to their citizens or not is another matter altogether. If a country whether rich or poor adopts Bitcoin, and if they have proactive leaders, then Bitcoin will become a true asset for their economy.

Adopting bitcoin or governments of poor countries allowing their citizens to invest in bitcoin is not entirely pointless as bitcoin is also a potential investment. Because if they have good knowledge and strategy then they still have a chance to make money from bitcoin. But to solve a country's unemployment and poverty problems, the government needs more practical solutions than just relying on bitcoin. The government needs to find ways to improve people's lives by reducing taxes, creating more jobs, promoting the country's strengths... not just relying on bitcoin to improve the economy. A country's economy doesn't work that way and bitcoin is not the god that can save everything.

At least, they have a hope that they can make a profit in the future especially if they continue investing in Bitcoin. Instead of using their money for other things that they are unclear, they can start to invest in Bitcoin and even if in the middle of their journey, they have a problem, they will know how to solve it by reading and search for more information. They can still trying to earns money from many ways and use some portions to invest in Bitcoin so they will prepares for their future instead to use Bitcoin as only for a means of payment.

Governments, especially in poor countries, see it the other way around. They think that through the old centralized system of total control and central banks, they can bring in more money through taxes and by printing more worthless paper money.

So they don't see Bitcoin as a good way to get rid of the forms of domination by colonial powers as you think. On the contrary, they probably think that adopting Bitcoin will be the reason for the loss of control and money from their hands because it is decentralized.

So I expect that they would rather remain under the domination of powerful countries than lose control completely from their hands.

Their priority will be different as they will aim for electricity or food before any advancement in technology. This is why, it will be a challenge for poor countries to promote new tech because they have other basic needs to address first. People will ask for better living conditions rather than new payment method. We need to put ourselves in their shoes so we know how they feel about this situation.

There’s no such as conflict if this law should be implemented in an under-develop country but my question is who made the law? The government. They’ll not accept this mostly when it’s associated with rural areas, no doubt bitcoin adoption is needed but looking at El Salvador they’re totally different from other countries refusing to accept bitcoin and definitely once the government decide a law either against bitcoin or not there’s no point creating conflict against the country.

Being afraid of "colonial powers" in 2024 to meddle with you isn't really that easy to handle. Look at El Salvador, they tried to talk about Bukele like he is a maniac, but in reality he did made his country safer than any other nation. The only thing they can attack them about is how he treats prisoners, but they do not realize the "rehabilitation" of the west doesn't work in El Salvador, so they had to be ruthless to make sure everywhere is safe and make sure criminals fear what could happen if they get caught.

Some criminals are just evil people and they will do whatever they want even with fear of death, but others? People who go into crime because they feel like they have no other choice? They would rather starve to death than go into crime after seeing what happened. Same goes with bitcoin, they tried to warn him with IMF, but obviously he didn't care, west will keep on attacking him, but he will keep on making his nation much better on the long run.

In the poor countries there are some group of people enjoying the privileges that others aren't enjoying hence they'll be against everybody having the same freedom as they do which Bitcoin can offer because with the adoption of Bitcoin, everybody will be having the same financial benefits. But with the current way their system is structured, it'll be hard for the same privileges to get to everyone. Alot of poor countries don't have democracy but they're being lied to that they do. Poor countries don't need Bitcoin right now, the have other challenges that needs to be handled before they start to think about adopting Bitcoin. There are electricity, good government, road and other issues that are more important and they have to focus on that first before thinking about how Bitcoin can help them. Bitcoin needs electricity but most poor counties don't have or they can't afford electricity 24hrs in a day.
 

These countries you are referring should be under develop countries, and underdeveloped countries might have shortage of technology which means it will be difficult for them to accept Bitcoin as legal tender because we all know that technical knowledge is needed to handle and control Bitcoin.

And countries that are not completely free by their colonials can have access to something’s, but taking the decision to accept Bitcoin can be very hard for them.

Poor countries need money to run their countries, and they can end up taking loan from other countries to survive. Holding Bitcoin can help them but they need to have extra money as reserve so that they can hold the Bitcoin for long to help them fight inflation, and they can use the profit to develop their countries.

It's the choice of the government of that country to legalize bitcoin and not their colonial master. That doesn't stop the poor country from  paying homage to the country who colonized them because they have adopted bitcoin. Bitcoin freedom is from third-party control over your funds and financial transactions, and not from the exploitation of the country that colonized your country.

Therefore, if a poor country adopts bitcoin doesn't mean that he is free from her colonial master exploits because if you don't accept, they will take it by force in a civilized way.

Yes they can. Let's take the US being far richer than the El Salvador but yet El Salvadorian government has accepted bitcoin for its legal tender for payments and services but yet US being a strong hold of bitcoin are still agitating and considering the adoption of bitcoin for legal tenders.
El Salvador was able to diminish the potential conflicts between bitcoin and her economy drifts after spotting that bitcoin would boosten their regional economy following after they have structured how bitcoin would strengthen their economy infrastructures.
This is not just about waking up and adopts bitcoin for legal tenders without sentiments views and how to resolve them.

Your worries and doubts are not entirely wrong, I understand what you say. Theoretically, a country adopting bitcoin as a currency would not create any conflicts, so people are not wrong to have such a view. But when it comes to politics and national interests, things are much more complicated than people think, and your concerns are valid.

Conflict could still arise if a country adopts bitcoin but unintentionally disadvantages neighboring countries or affects the interests of dominant powers in that country. Therefore, whether the application of bitcoin into the economy will create conflict or not will depend on the political situation of each country, and domestic and foreign relations...it can be said that there are many factors to consider. Similar to wars today, it all involves interests between nations and disagreements between politicians...

Exactly, have have multiple thoughts of how bitcoin would cause conflict because this is like an investment that a lot of people have benefited from why would it be the reason for conflict again so this is just a misconception about bitcoin. We all know what bitcoin was invested for, but developed and underdeveloped are all fighting for them to be able to invest in bitcoin they have all turned it to be a means of surviving, the privilege is true, they should be happy to be able to even invest. And that is why I respect countries that encourage their youths to go into bitcoin, their is nothing for them when it comes to work train them into traders and other tech sectors if possible the only thing is the government will want to do what will benefit them, that is the politicians, be should rather see bitcoin as a blessing than a curse, bitcoin those not cause conflict.

One good thing about bitcoin investments is that aside from being very easy to manage and attain, it can also be used as an investment in both a large scale, even in the case of a whole country and even for smaller HODLERs. Inflation has been a world problem for quite a very long time now and different countries have their ways of combating and managing it's effect on their economy. Some countries like el Salvador have tried implementing  the in the past.

Bitcoin isn't a source of conflict. I'll rather call it a neutral flexible currency. To be sincere, bitcoin can be used for good and to prevent conflict as much as it can be used to fuel conflicts just like regular fiat can be used as a payment method for wrong things too. The idea is I actually don't see bitcoin as the cause.

In the case of a small country like El Sal, they would able to make a good crypto hub for funds to flow, though, it would need more than just a talk and much of the expertise gathered to make such a feat possible.
And don't start on the regulations..

I took the time to read your various responses, and I really appreciated them. That said, I think this could lead to conflicts. First, there are often tensions between African countries, which do not always get along. Each has its own concerns and priorities, and this complicates things. Moreover, we cannot ignore that some former colonial powers still exert a form of dominance over us. It is frustrating to see how history continues to influence our relationships. And then, there is the fact that in some countries, the currency used is not even manufactured locally. This raises questions about economic sovereignty and the ability to control their own resources.

Freedom can mean different things. There's freedom of a country from other countries, which can be political and economic. Then there's freedom inside the country (freedom of citizens), which can also be political and economic. When people live in a democracy, it usually means there is political freedom of citizens and at least some degree of economic freedom of citizens. To be an independent country, there should also be political freedom from other countries, but as for financial freedom from other countries, that isn't always the case and doesn't directly impact whether a country is a democracy or not.
Adoption of Bitcoin as a legal tender is related to financial freedom of both citizens (unless it's custodial wallets only) and the state. I don't think it would lead to conflicts between citizens, and I don't think it's a big enough deal to lead to very strong tension between states, but it might be viewed as a bad move and a country might be pressured internationally to abandon Bitcoin or not adopt it in the first place. We've seen an example of this when the IMF was unhappy about El Salvador's decision to adopt Bitcoin, and the pressure from the IMF continues till this day.

As some have said, adopting bitcoin in poor countries will not create any conflicts but the issue that the government of that country should consider is what benefits it will bring and what impact it will have on their economy.

If their goal and intention is to find ways to improve the economy. Honestly, I don't see much benefit in a country making bitcoin a currency, it won't help them improve their economy and people's lives.

To improve the country's economy, the government needs to be strong in fighting corruption, finding ways to create more jobs and bring more benefits to the people. Using a decentralized and highly volatile asset will not improve a country's economy or sometimes make things worse because it is harder to control.

There will be no conflict at all.

Even they accept Bitcoin, there's no guarantee they will buy Bitcoin because they're "poor", means they don't have enough money to buy Bitcoin. There would be a news where robbery steal someone cell phone in order to get Bitcoin, but this problem not cause by Bitcoin since anything that valuable always bring someone to steal/get it.

Accept or not, it doesn't really change anything.

When you say tensions with established financial systems, do you mean the US dollar?

We all know that many poor countries depend or rely on USA a lot and they are almost at beck and call of USA. Will adopting bitcoin be almost like a betrayal to other currencies? No. Adoption does not mean it will completely replace other fiat currencies just yet.

But it can certainly help the citizens of these developing countries to economically benefit from adoption of bitcoin. I am sure that the government can use bitcoin to invest in and have additional funds to be used in maintaining and improving the country.

The adoption of Bitcoin by poorer countries could mean a lot of financial independence, but perhaps new challenges, too. For countries struggling with unstable currencies and high inflation, such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe, Bitcoin has been one way to secure citizen wealth outside of traditional, volatile systems. In this respect, it is its potential to boost financial inclusion by slashing the cost of transactions most relevant wherever access to banking is limited. However, its volatility and lack of worldwide standards for regulation make it impossible for any nation to rely on Bitcoin today as a major currency without putting its economy in jeopardy. In fact, other countries such as El Salvador, which have legally established Bitcoin as legal tender, are already suffering from mixed economic outcomes due to Bitcoin's difficulties.

Still, there might be a fight with big financial powers in cases where some poor country adopted Bitcoin, as you mentioned. In more major economies, such as those of the U.S. and the EU, there is suspicion about giving away financial authority to decentralized currencies. Until then, perhaps Bitcoin could fit as an asset in supplement in countries which do not have sound financial systems rather than being a replacement for their national currencies.

I don't see a reason why the adoption of Bitcoin can results in conflicts between different countries especially the underdeveloped poor countries, but rather it's adoption will emerge the country to be independent and enjoy freedom like you said and it's a better priveledge for them. So it's of great advantages to poor countries adopting Bitcoin as a legal tender cause it'll definitely boost their financial state but tho the country may experience conflicts  within them especially with the government trying to decide on it's usage and adoption but aside that they'll eventually have peace.

I agree.
It can help in theory, but each case is different and wouldn't be solved the same in each country.
BTC should be adopted to the problems it - should - solve in each case, because it wouldn't be a magic wand of sorts.

There may be conflicts indeed, but not of a military nature, but via financial pressures.

The IMF has pressured El Salvador to abandon its pro-Bitcoin policy. It wasn't successful in El Salvador's case, because the country was financially relatively stable, and even if it had accessed some IMF loans they weren't in risk of defaulting. But a heavily indebted country with a weak economy, like the poorest African and Asian countries or Haiti, could succumb to this kind of pressure if the default risk is too high.

I agree here, but a pro-Bitcoin strategy for a poor country is a big challenge. And it depends on the type of country we're talking about.

A small country with low population (less than 10 million) could adopt El Salvador's model: a pro-Bitcoin policy in such a country which attracts investments from the outside, or manages to create a thriving regional industry hub with Bitcoin/crypto startups and service providers, could already make a difference for the local economy.

In a larger country, let's say from Cameroon's or Ghana's size on, however, it's more difficult to directly benefit as even a relatively large crypto sector would only raise the GDP by a tiny percentage. If the banking sector is very underdeveloped and only a small fraction have bank accounts, then there are indeed chances the population could benefit by financial inclusion. But in larger countries often already some reasonable fiat-based fintech services like M-PESA exist.

So the question is which problem should be solved. If it's inflation, I think there are chances with a Bitcoin-positive strategy because one could lower the demand for foreign currencies; this for example worked a bit in Argentina - people bought USDT instead of the dollar, reducing the demand for the USD proper and reducing pressure on the exchange rate. But you have to take into account that this has to be accompanied by a strategy which keeps the fiat supply in line with demand, e.g. resist the temptation to "print" too much money.

Has there ever been a case of a country being sanctioned because they recognize Bitcoin as a means of payment? I also don't think countries will wage wars because of this. If the goal is to force countries to stop using Bitcoin they don't have to launch missiles to do that, just ban their export activities or something similar. This may lead to indirect internal conflict if their situation is that poor, but I don't think the key issue lies in whether Bitcoin is being used as money or not. They need to fix their education issues, inflation issues, etc. Using Bitcoin is not going to magically remove all of that to begin with. CMIIW.

I agree, using bitcoin as currency in poor countries won't cause any conflicts but it won't solve any problems for them, it won't help them reduce transaction fees or help people escape inflation like OP said. Using bitcoin as an investment can bring more benefits, but it is not without barriers because investing in bitcoin requires money, while where will the poor get money to invest? Also, investing in bitcoin does not guarantee profits, not everyone can make profits just by investing, it requires proper planning and strategy. But at least it creates opportunities for those who know how to seize them to have a chance to escape poverty.

Conflicts are possible among citizens, government vs citizens, and government vs governments.

Governments can create their educational centers on Bitcoin for their citizens. I don't say such attempts from governments are bad, but if people can use Bitcoin for payments, they have access to Internet. That means they don't have to rely on educational resources from governments to learn about Bitcoin.

There are many available educational resources on Bitcoin, and free. Governments are unreliable and I don't trust their educational resources on Bitcoin.

People as citizens will make big mistakes by believing in governments and learn from governments. If they use close source Bitcoin wallet softwares built by governments, it's terrible mistake as they must always remember reasons to use Bitcoin, to be their own banks, and free from government control.

Reminder: do not keep your money in online accounts

Conflict between citizens or conflict with other countries? because both are different.
However, the use of Bitcoin as a means of payment will not cause conflict unless the government of the country does not first provide knowledge about Bitcoin so that its citizens will make many mistakes when making transactions with Bitcoin.
It takes knowledge to be able to use Bitcoin as a means of payment because this is a new technology that certainly many people do not understand, especially from poor countries where they have limited access to the internet, while conflict with other countries I think will not happen because all countries have the right on what they want to do in their own country.

It is better if the adoption of Bitcoin in poor countries to be as an investment than a means of payment. We know Bitcoin can be the best investment as many people prove it by making a big profit. So when people in poor countries can saving their money in Bitcoin, they can accumulates it for some years and sell it when Bitcoin price in a high price.

They can use Bitcoin as a payment but they already have fiat money. Besides that, their government needs to accepted Bitcoin as a payment which I am not sure they can do that easily.

And if they can use Bitcoin as an investment, they can have more money as a profit from Bitcoin investment.

They can use that profit to survives in the hard situation that can coming anytime.

Democracy must exist in their nation by internal infrastructures and components, not from other countries.

They can change and improve their national economy. If they have bad economy, it's their problems that are not from other countries.

If El Salvador can make Bitcoin legal tender, any small nation can do the same if their government leader wants to do it and gets enough support from other politicians in their Congress. I say this in a nation with democracy, not dictatorship because under a dictator leader, big decision for a nation can be made by a single person, the dictator.

I don't think so, you can just use bitcoin as the secondary legal tender and everything will be fine. also, allowing bitcoin for investment will give more opportunity to the people.
moreover, bitcoin can be used for people as a settlement for payment of working overseas remotely like freelancing and so on. so they are not limited by the complexity and can find better opportunity else where which preferable abroad with better pay wages.
in my understanding, if people can easily find opportunity for them to make a living or even making them financially better, there will be less conflict, most of conflict always stems from poverty where poor people finding dead end and they just want better living environment.

No, adoption of Bitcoin in even poor countries won't cause much conflict, I know if suddenly Bitcoin losses value during the bear market then many of the citizens of those poor countries would not use it as a payment method and consider fiat superior to it but it won't cause any conflicts.

There's some chance that corrupt politicians of the poor countries then might use Bitcoin to hide traces of their corruption or the ones who are against Bitcoin might show that something like that could happen but still even that won't be cause of any conflicts directly.

Most of those poor countries are poor due to lack of education. The rate of illiteracy is very high on such countries. Hence, they don't know what true democracy is and they all pretend to be happy with what freedom they have. Now do you think these people will be able to use bitcoin? Even if they did, they would most likely be using a custodial centralized wallet to make transaction. In that case, they will still lose their financial freedom because those wallets will still be controlled by the government. And transactions with bitcoin wont be cheap for them. I doubt any people from those poor country will be willing to spend 40 cents to make a single transaction.
This is applicable for every country in the world.

 

There will never be a conflict in the first place if only the government has good intentions, and truly wants the citizens to key into Bitcoin and benefit from it. But In countries (I assume), the reverse is always the case. El Salvador has always been our reference point since Bitcoin was made a legal tender over there. I haven't heard of any casualties to their financial system, but rather, it's either you hear that they've purchased a certain amount, or they've acquired some amount from mining through volcanic geothermal energy.


And, we don't even see how much they print into circulation daily, but we feel it's effect as time goes bye. They are quite upset that Bitcoin is the opposite of the financial system that the country operates. Transparency is just a big deal to them.

Nobody believes that they have democracy. Maybe the ruling politicians say that mantra, but in reality it's not even close and the citizens are certainly aware of it. As you can see, both are trying harder to ban Bitcoin because it represents the opposite of the regime implemented by the government.
Free management of your money, cheap transactions without banks as intermediaries and simple income from abroad... Everything that an undemocratic regime does not want its citizens to have.

I don't think it is. Bitcoin adoption is meant to give us freedom from the government and banks and be with our own bank. If a country aims to increase financial stability and financial freedom of its people, then it wouldn't create any conflict. Only the greedy people sitting in the government make it as an issue, but for a poor country that is lead by an open-minded leader, bitcoin becomes an asset and an opportunity, not a threat.

It's crazy how many countries are indebted to great countries like China, Russia, the United States, and Great Britain. One way or the other they have to pick a side when conflicts arise. It's either they are followers of the country they are indebted to or they face another side. This happens to only countries that keep getting loans from these big countries. I heard news of many African countries who take loans from the China government. And such loans can be so difficult to pay back. Only one way they can pay back than to be a slave to the country they owe indirectly.


Bitcoin was meant to bring financial freedom and not to enslave any country whether they are poor or not. And it is one main reason why Satoshi made it more decentralized because if it was controlled by any government entities surely there would be conflict and disagreement between countries in power and lower countries. Right now, I cannot imagine any conflict happening because no country has full authority over Bitcoin. And every citizen in a country has the right to choose if they want to make transactions with Bitcoin even in countries where it is not legal. There are still a lot of Bitcoin users.

Of course. I don’t think anti-bitcoin countries would go to war with another country just because they chose to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender. El Salvador and Central African Republic adopted Bitcoin as legal tender years ago, I haven’t seen missiles flying into their country airspace neither have their relations with other countries dwindled since.

Regardless of the country I don't think this will be a source of conflict regardless of poor or rich countries trying to adopt bitcoin as legal tender all will be the same.

Pros and cons are likely to occur but that does not mean a conflict that can split a country because after all when pros and cons exist then it is a natural thing but when this triggers a prolonged conflict I think it is too much especially when we know that when a country implements regulations on bitcoin as one of the legal means of payment in the end it is only optional as an option because after all the means of payment on fiat still applies here.

Things that make it complicated are when a country that is infiltrated by some people who have a desire because they don't really understand how bitcoin works that muddies the atmosphere (usually like that) because when ordinary people or don't know about bitcoin sometimes they won't care too much and are neutral but it will be different when there are some people who have an interest for the benefit of a thing will definitely try to muddy the atmosphere by considering bitcoin negative.

I apologize for not specifying, but I am talking about the poor countries in Africa. You both took the example of El Salvador. But no matter what happens, I think there will always be a difference.

(No” if it is a horizontal conflict & “Yes” if it is a vertical conflict. We all know very well that governments and their financial systems don't like bitcoin because of its decentralization, even if it were to be implemented, it would be a supervised bitcoin.)

Could you explain in more detail what you mean by 'horizontal conflict' and 'vertical conflict' in the context of Bitcoin adoption? How could these types of conflicts manifest concretely in a developing country?

“No” if it is a horizontal conflict & “Yes” if it is a vertical conflict. We all know very well that governments and their financial systems don't like bitcoin because of its decentralization, even if it were to be implemented, it would be a supervised bitcoin.

El Salvador is one of the countries that implement bitcoin, even it's legal tender there. Luckily, so far i've never heard of any conflict that occurred there because of bitcoin, so i think that can be our reference that implementing bitcoin in third world countries will not be a problem.

No, bitcoin can rather be a means to resolve any lingering conflict dealing with a country if adopted, we have a very good example with how bitcoin was being adopted as a legal tender in El-Salvador and ever since then, things have been working more better for them, despite not considering the series of warnings from the IMF over their decision, this thought us a lot of lessons, that no one can see or feel our pains the same way we do, even when they assume to be in our shoe, once we are made up for a determination, then we should go straight up for it without looking back or giving up.


The basic concept behind democracy has made many to be making demo and craze all in the name of doing democracy, because the intention was taken away long time ago and the freedom had been deprived of the masses, a true democracy is what we have in bitcoin and not politics because the people are free on their own finances, while bitcoin remains a decentralized digital currency.

Do you think that the adoption of Bitcoin in poor countries as a means of payment can be a source of conflict
I asked this question because many poor countries believe they are in democracy and enjoy freedom. However, the reality is that there is still some form of domination by former colonial powers. They are free on paper, but not financially. That’s why I wonder if one day one of these countries decides to adopt Bitcoin as a means of payment and whether this could lead to conflicts.
Adopting Bitcoin could offer several advantages, such as increased financial inclusion, reduced transaction costs, and protection against inflation. However, these benefits may also raise tensions with established financial systems and governments.
Do you think a poor country will experience peace if it makes such a decision?